1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses on July 29, 2017.

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money. (2) The Defendant’s loan agreed that the Defendant would pay the said money by adding the interest of KRW 2% per month to the Defendant’s loan in connection with the C Development Project, and the maturity date has not yet arrived.

The loan amounting to KRW 150 million is a large-scale loan under Article 393 of the Commercial Act. Since the Plaintiff was well aware that the loan did not undergo a resolution by the board of directors of the Defendant, it is not possible to seek the return of the loan.

B. 1) On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant on December 9, 2016, KRW 54,000,000, and KRW 15,000 on December 13, 2016. 2) D sent to the Defendant’s representative of E-type E-type, the Defendant’s major shareholder, a letter of the words “I will repay LF in full amount.”

3) On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant, KRW 1,000,000 on January 12, 2017, KRW 10,000 on February 7, 2017, KRW 3,000,000 on February 14, 2017, and KRW 7,000,00 on March 8, 2017 (total KRW 150,000,00) to the Defendant’s representative, who was appointed as the Defendant’s director or representative director on February 23, 2015, was retired on March 31, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. While the Plaintiff’s representative holds concurrent office as the Defendant’s representative, the Plaintiff’s additional loans over five occasions after sending the Defendant’s letter “PFFFF. Deposit will be repaid in full,” which is the Defendant’s major shareholder. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have accepted the repayment period as stipulated in the above letter.

Since there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant received the PF loan and the maturity date has not yet arrived, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is without merit.

Even if the defendant is liable for delay by serving a copy of the complaint of this case without agreement on the due date, the following ancillary reasons are considered as follows.